Evolutionists would like us to believe that chance and necessity are responsible for the origin of life. This article proves that such an event is not only improbable, but impossible. It is my belief that the origin of life could only happen through the efforts of a designer. http://www.uncommondescent.com...

At 9/4/2014 9:11:01 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:Evolutionists would like us to believe that chance and necessity are responsible for the origin of life. This article proves that such an event is not only improbable, but impossible. It is my belief that the origin of life could only happen through the efforts of a designer. http://www.uncommondescent.com...

At 9/4/2014 9:11:01 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:Evolutionists would like us to believe that chance and necessity are responsible for the origin of life. This article proves that such an event is not only improbable, but impossible. It is my belief that the origin of life could only happen through the efforts of a designer. http://www.uncommondescent.com...

Now that is funny.

"In times of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act".

At 9/4/2014 9:11:01 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:Evolutionists would like us to believe that chance and necessity are responsible for the origin of life. This article proves that such an event is not only improbable, but impossible. It is my belief that the origin of life could only happen through the efforts of a designer. http://www.uncommondescent.com...

Debate me on this and I will take my free win.

We can debate it right here. Show me how this article is wrong. There is no way that random chance can create a biologic computer, let alone the programming to operate it.

At 9/4/2014 9:11:01 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:Evolutionists would like us to believe that chance and necessity are responsible for the origin of life. This article proves that such an event is not only improbable, but impossible. It is my belief that the origin of life could only happen through the efforts of a designer. http://www.uncommondescent.com...

Now that is funny.

If it's so funny, then why don't you show us how he is wrong. Did you read the article? If you did, do you even understand it?

At 9/4/2014 9:11:01 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:Evolutionists would like us to believe that chance and necessity are responsible for the origin of life. This article proves that such an event is not only improbable, but impossible. It is my belief that the origin of life could only happen through the efforts of a designer. http://www.uncommondescent.com...

Debate me on this and I will take my free win.

We can debate it right here. Show me how this article is wrong. There is no way that random chance can create a biologic computer, let alone the programming to operate it.

I could just quote my own articles that just debunk it. Articles are supposed to support your arguments, not make them. Moreover whatever makes you think abiogenesis is a random chance process? That's a strawman.

Moreover abiogenesis has little to do with cells as they are today, evolution via. Natural selection is a perfectly good process for forming the cells as they are today, and that included transcription, current replication mechanisms etc.

At 9/4/2014 9:11:01 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:Evolutionists would like us to believe that chance and necessity are responsible for the origin of life. This article proves that such an event is not only improbable, but impossible. It is my belief that the origin of life could only happen through the efforts of a designer. http://www.uncommondescent.com...

Debate me on this and I will take my free win.

We can debate it right here. Show me how this article is wrong. There is no way that random chance can create a biologic computer, let alone the programming to operate it.

I could just quote my own articles that just debunk it. Articles are supposed to support your arguments, not make them. Moreover whatever makes you think abiogenesis is a random chance process? That's a strawman.

Moreover abiogenesis has little to do with cells as they are today, evolution via. Natural selection is a perfectly good process for forming the cells as they are today, and that included transcription, current replication mechanisms etc.

Once again, I ask you. Can you refute anything in the article? It seems, to me, to be an air tight case. You say that abiogenesis was not random. If it wasn't, that would indicate a guiding force. You can't have it both ways. And this is not about evolution. This is about the origins of life. DNA is a computer. It uses formalism to affect matter. It contains instructions that tell the many parts of the cell what to do and when to do it. This requires a program. It's more than simple chemistry. DNA contains information. Information cannot arise through chance. It requires intelligence.

At 9/4/2014 9:11:01 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:Evolutionists would like us to believe that chance and necessity are responsible for the origin of life. This article proves that such an event is not only improbable, but impossible. It is my belief that the origin of life could only happen through the efforts of a designer. http://www.uncommondescent.com...

Debate me on this and I will take my free win.

We can debate it right here. Show me how this article is wrong. There is no way that random chance can create a biologic computer, let alone the programming to operate it.

I could just quote my own articles that just debunk it. Articles are supposed to support your arguments, not make them. Moreover whatever makes you think abiogenesis is a random chance process? That's a strawman.

Moreover abiogenesis has little to do with cells as they are today, evolution via. Natural selection is a perfectly good process for forming the cells as they are today, and that included transcription, current replication mechanisms etc.

Once again, I ask you. Can you refute anything in the article? It seems, to me, to be an air tight case. You say that abiogenesis was not random. If it wasn't, that would indicate a guiding force. You can't have it both ways.

First law of thermodynamics.

And this is not about evolution. This is about the origins of life.

Sure but you are objection to how the cell is now, which is a question of evolution, not abiogenesis. The system that would have been produced by abiogenesis would have been orders of magnitude simpler than even the simplest cell we have today.

DNA is a computer.

Prove this. DNA is a polymeric molecule. Moreover abiogenesis doesn't deal with DNA, DNA would only be a later evolution.

It uses formalism to affect matter. It contains instructions that tell the many parts of the cell what to do and when to do it. This requires a program

You can use euphemisms all you want to make it sound like a human-made system, but it's chemistry first and foremost. It doesn't forward your case at all.

. It's more than simple chemistry.

I see nothing but molecules doing their thermodynamically driven thing in the cell, and this has nothing to do with abiogenesis either.

At 9/4/2014 9:11:01 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:Evolutionists would like us to believe that chance and necessity are responsible for the origin of life. This article proves that such an event is not only improbable, but impossible. It is my belief that the origin of life could only happen through the efforts of a designer. http://www.uncommondescent.com...

Debate me on this and I will take my free win.

We can debate it right here. Show me how this article is wrong. There is no way that random chance can create a biologic computer, let alone the programming to operate it.

I could just quote my own articles that just debunk it. Articles are supposed to support your arguments, not make them. Moreover whatever makes you think abiogenesis is a random chance process? That's a strawman.

Moreover abiogenesis has little to do with cells as they are today, evolution via. Natural selection is a perfectly good process for forming the cells as they are today, and that included transcription, current replication mechanisms etc.

Once again, I ask you. Can you refute anything in the article? It seems, to me, to be an air tight case. You say that abiogenesis was not random. If it wasn't, that would indicate a guiding force. You can't have it both ways.

First law of thermodynamics.

And this is not about evolution. This is about the origins of life.

Sure but you are objection to how the cell is now, which is a question of evolution, not abiogenesis. The system that would have been produced by abiogenesis would have been orders of magnitude simpler than even the simplest cell we have today.

DNA is a computer.

Prove this. DNA is a polymeric molecule. Moreover abiogenesis doesn't deal with DNA, DNA would only be a later evolution.

It uses formalism to affect matter. It contains instructions that tell the many parts of the cell what to do and when to do it. This requires a program

You can use euphemisms all you want to make it sound like a human-made system, but it's chemistry first and foremost. It doesn't forward your case at all.

. It's more than simple chemistry.

I see nothing but molecules doing their thermodynamically driven thing in the cell, and this has nothing to do with abiogenesis either.

At 9/4/2014 9:11:01 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:Evolutionists would like us to believe that chance and necessity are responsible for the origin of life. This article proves that such an event is not only improbable, but impossible. It is my belief that the origin of life could only happen through the efforts of a designer. http://www.uncommondescent.com...

Debate me on this and I will take my free win.

We can debate it right here. Show me how this article is wrong. There is no way that random chance can create a biologic computer, let alone the programming to operate it.

I could just quote my own articles that just debunk it. Articles are supposed to support your arguments, not make them. Moreover whatever makes you think abiogenesis is a random chance process? That's a strawman.

Moreover abiogenesis has little to do with cells as they are today, evolution via. Natural selection is a perfectly good process for forming the cells as they are today, and that included transcription, current replication mechanisms etc.

Once again, I ask you. Can you refute anything in the article? It seems, to me, to be an air tight case. You say that abiogenesis was not random. If it wasn't, that would indicate a guiding force. You can't have it both ways.

First law of thermodynamics.

And this is not about evolution. This is about the origins of life.

Sure but you are objection to how the cell is now, which is a question of evolution, not abiogenesis. The system that would have been produced by abiogenesis would have been orders of magnitude simpler than even the simplest cell we have today.

DNA is a computer.

Prove this. DNA is a polymeric molecule. Moreover abiogenesis doesn't deal with DNA, DNA would only be a later evolution.

It uses formalism to affect matter. It contains instructions that tell the many parts of the cell what to do and when to do it. This requires a program

You can use euphemisms all you want to make it sound like a human-made system, but it's chemistry first and foremost. It doesn't forward your case at all.

. It's more than simple chemistry.

I see nothing but molecules doing their thermodynamically driven thing in the cell, and this has nothing to do with abiogenesis either.

At 9/4/2014 9:11:01 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:Evolutionists would like us to believe that chance and necessity are responsible for the origin of life. This article proves that such an event is not only improbable, but impossible. It is my belief that the origin of life could only happen through the efforts of a designer. http://www.uncommondescent.com...

Premise 2 is simply trying to set up a double-standard, to apply rules to abiogenesis, but at the same time, protect your "intelligent designer" from those rules.

Aside from that Premise 2 is wrong. "Stuff" exists. We know that stuff can't not exist. That doesn't suggest that it was caused to exist, or that it is the product of an effect. It simply exists. And while this boggles the limited mind of the theist, they have little problem assigning the same claim to their "intelligent designer", who demonstrates a substantial lack of intelligence, if one examines the "designs".

If you can imagine a starting point of nothingness, then you can imagine a starting point of somethingness. It's a coin-toss. Either something has always existed, or it hasn't. Theists love to claim that God is the something that has always existed, but there is no objective evidence for God. We have nothing but objective evidence for the stuff of the universe.

So we have one premise which is irrelevant, and a second premise which is false, to serve as the launch point for the entire explanation to follow.

The article also defines life as being self-reproducing. And while this is a trait of life as we know it, there is no need for a proto-cell to be able to self replicate. Researchers have mixed as little as 5 chemicals and ended up with a proto-cell which can pursue an energy source (more chemicals - food), attempt to evade another set of chemicals, motivate with purpose, and yet not qualify fully as alive. However, simple external mechanical force can split the blob of chemicals, resulting in two proto-cells. It is highly likely that evolution began before the first proto-cells would have qualified as "alive" by the standards of biology today.

The article makes the laughably false claim, "This unsupported claim is based on the conviction that all arrangements of atoms are possible and life is considered merely one such arrangement."

Did we suddenly throw everything we know about chemical bonding right out the window? Do we now assume that cytosine can bond with adenine in DNA? Has the author found a way to chemically link guanine to thymine? The entire basis of chemistry is founded on the principle that you CANNOT simply bond atoms in any conceivable arrangements. Chemical bonding is limited by the properties/charge of the elements in question. And this is one of the the fundamental principles of chemistry which makes the common calculations hoping to present a probability against abiogenesis, so horrendously incorrect. They take a given number of required elements, square that number, and claim this to represent the odds against the proper combination. But you can't simply bond any element to any other element in any arrangement under any conditions. There is a need for an oppositional charge, and/or the proper number of valence electrons, at the given energy level/orbital.

Let's see... the article is already shredded and I've read two paragraphs, and two sentences.

You ranted about evolution being wrong, and posted an article which was quickly shredded (shown to be false).

Then you jumped to making claims about DNA, and were again, quickly defeated.

Now you're trying to launch an ambush on abiogenesis and have - so far - met with the same fate.

At what point do you begin to consider that perhaps all of your attempts are miserable failures because you're wrong?

Are you familiar with the self-replicating RNA from Scripps Research (2008)? Have you read about the work at Szostak Labs? Have you investigated the work going on under the direction of Craig Venter? It seems you're ignorant of any actual study in regard to such topics. You simply drag a net through the web and present any article which to your level of ignorance, seems appealing, and then present it. And you find the articles you keep presenting are easily defeated, time, after time, after time.

If you're short on time you can jump into 4:40. That work is from Szostak Labs.

If you just want to see what can be accomplished with a simple mixture of chemicals to create a proto-cell which doesn't yet qualify as "alive", jump to 6:00.

And don't come back complaining "That's not life!". I know it's not yet alive by the common definition. But be honest with yourself about what these protocells can do. If you were walking across Death Valley, found a small pool of water, and observed these proto-cells in the water, would you be inclined to say they were living, or non-living? How would you even know? That's how much progress has been made in the field of abiogenesis in just a few decades. We can create proto-cells, that to the casual observer, might well be mistaken as alive. Now remember that evolution can operate on a proto-cell. And also remember that we're not looking at a careful combination of thousands of chemicals, or even hundreds of specialized chemicals. We're looking at a mixture of FIVE chemicals.

Abiogenesis is not only possible, but quite highly probable. If you do any objective research, you'll find what is most improbable is the idea that biological matter can exist on a planet such as this, without resulting in life over the course of a billion or so years. There are at least billions of possible locations for the chemicals to mix, mixing would be going on hundreds, thousands or even millions of times per day, over the course of billions of years. If you calculate the odds against the proper mixture at several hundred trillion to one, by the time you split that down by a billion years, at 365 days per year, and at least hundreds to thousands of spontaneous chemical mixtures per day, times the number of probable locations for such mixtures to occur, it is nearly impossible to imagine that abiogenesis did not take place. The odds are very much against abiogenesis not occurring.

At 9/4/2014 9:11:01 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:Evolutionists would like us to believe that chance and necessity are responsible for the origin of life. This article proves that such an event is not only improbable, but impossible. It is my belief that the origin of life could only happen through the efforts of a designer. http://www.uncommondescent.com...

Debate me on this and I will take my free win.

We can debate it right here. Show me how this article is wrong. There is no way that random chance can create a biologic computer, let alone the programming to operate it.

I could just quote my own articles that just debunk it. Articles are supposed to support your arguments, not make them. Moreover whatever makes you think abiogenesis is a random chance process? That's a strawman.

Moreover abiogenesis has little to do with cells as they are today, evolution via. Natural selection is a perfectly good process for forming the cells as they are today, and that included transcription, current replication mechanisms etc.

Once again, I ask you. Can you refute anything in the article? It seems, to me, to be an air tight case. You say that abiogenesis was not random. If it wasn't, that would indicate a guiding force. You can't have it both ways.

First law of thermodynamics.

And this is not about evolution. This is about the origins of life.

Sure but you are objection to how the cell is now, which is a question of evolution, not abiogenesis. The system that would have been produced by abiogenesis would have been orders of magnitude simpler than even the simplest cell we have today.

DNA is a computer.

Prove this. DNA is a polymeric molecule. Moreover abiogenesis doesn't deal with DNA, DNA would only be a later evolution.

It uses formalism to affect matter. It contains instructions that tell the many parts of the cell what to do and when to do it. This requires a program

You can use euphemisms all you want to make it sound like a human-made system, but it's chemistry first and foremost. It doesn't forward your case at all.

. It's more than simple chemistry.

I see nothing but molecules doing their thermodynamically driven thing in the cell, and this has nothing to do with abiogenesis either.

Are you going to support any of this crap you are saying with evidence? Send me the debate challenge, I will gladly take my free win.

I'm still waiting for you to refute anything in the article. Take your pick. Choose one thing he said and show me how he's mistaken.

I already did, by showing that arguing against abiogenesis for something that would be explainable by evolution via. Natural selection is a straw man, and also against the random chance straw man.

If your argument is a strawman, it is invalid, ergo refuted. Now send me the debate challenge and show to everyone you actually know something on the topic.

I asked you to refute anything he said in his article. Here's one for you.

Thesis 01: From a primordial soup of disorganized atoms as input a cybernetic constructor as output cannot spontaneously arise.

As said, a constructor implies a physical implementation of a computer formalism. In a naturalistic scenario, if the constructor formalism doesn"t exist already in the input, it should be generated by the C&N computer (for the principle of causality and the principle of existence of formalism, F > P). But we saw that this formalism doesn"t come from a computation. Then C&N cannot create it. That is expressed in the jargon of informatics by the GIGO principle ("Garbage In, Garbage Out").

In the naturalistic scenario we are given to understand that formalism appears spontaneously in the output of a C&N computer. The principle of causality tells us that either C&N or intelligent input must have created the formalism. Yet we have already determined that a C&N computer cannot create a computer formalism. Therefore, if such formalism is present in the output of C&N, it must necessarily have first been introduced via input into the computer. There is no other option. But in the naturalistic scenario the input is limited to disordered atoms, which have no formalism. Therefore, given that intelligent input is prohibited and C&N is incompetent, no computer formalism can arise in the output of a C&N computer. The naturalistic scenario cannot produce the wonders demanded of it.

By the way, a computer formalism contains what David Abel calls "prescriptive functional information" (PI) [2] that is of course a form of what William Dembski calls "complex specified information" [6] and justifies what Michael Polanyi said: "the information content of a biological whole exceeds that of the sum of its parts" [7]. If this formalism x doesn"t exist, the output would have an information content equal to the sum of its atoms and nobody denies that a biological system is something more than a container of disordered atoms or a tank filled with gas molecules. That "formalism precedes physicalism" is expressed by another researcher this way:

"That a semantic does exist, i.e. that the information stored in the DNA is carrier of meaning, is inferable from the fact that biological systems do work, the information is translated in a sensible manner in functioning biological processes" [8].